HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0916 CC REG ITEM 10A(Z2q7- /9
ITEM 10 0
CITI' ()F ..1IOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT City Council Meeting
CITY OF MOORPARK of 1.16 - 9 g
ACTION: App ro,1f4 5 "L
TO: The Honorable City Council re c o rmmc nd u%i a n 100 , 2.
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Servi&Y
DATE: September 9, 1998 (CC Meeting of September 16)
SUBJECT: Consider Potential Saving for Park Maintenance Reduced Level of
Service
Background
At its September 2, 1998, meeting the City Council discussed a proposal to reduce the
level of landscape and routine maintenance at one or more parks as a trial program to
achieve additional savings as an option to closing parks. Staff was directed to provide
potential cost savings for reducing the number of times the turf is mowed, fertilized, and
aerated and the level of general maintenance and repair of park amenities. The specific
parks mentioned by the Council included Virginia Colony, Glenwood, and Country Trail.
Additionally, staff was asked to take a look at the feasibility of reducing the frequency of
scheduled watering to the minimal level required to keep the turf alive, using Virginia
Colony Park as a demonstration site. This report serves to provide the Council with
potential estimated park maintenance cost savings information.
Discussion
The City's landscape maintenance contractor, Sunridge Landscape Maintenance, has
provided estimated monthly landscape maintenance costs for each park based on a
revised Scope of Work under its maintenance contract with the City. The monthly
landscape maintenance costs identified on Attachment A correlate to a reduction in the
frequency that Sunridge mows, and edges the turf, prunes bushes and trees, removes
weeds, rakes or blow leaves, performs litter removal on the turf and in planters, removes
ashes from barbecues, washes picnic tables, and other general landscape related
maintenance. Currently, Sunridge mows, and edges each park once a week, and performs
the other related tasks one or more days per week as required. To generate savings, it
would be necessary to cut back these identified tasks to less than once every week.
However, it is important to note that reducing the frequency for which landscape services
are provided does not automatically generate an equivalent cost savings. While the City
would see a reduction in some tasks (mowing and edging), for many tasks the overall
work load would be essentially the same. For example, if the contractor is directed to
trim low growing branches and hedges once every other week rather than once a week,
there is still the same number of branches and hedges to trim; as a result, the work load is
simply transferred to another work day.
Potential Park Savings
Page 2 of 4
Additionally, the Council asked to look at reducing the number of times turf areas are
fertilized from four times a year to once a year, and the number of times the turf is
aerated annually would be reduced from five times to once a year. The savings realized
by this reduction is also contained in the revised monthly landscape contract costs
identified on Attachment A.
If the Council were to approve the revised Scope of Work, under the landscape
maintenance contract, Sunridge would continue to open, clean and stock the restrooms,
empty trash cans, and groom the sand in the park playground lots each weekday. Also,
Sunridge would continue its existing level of maintenance performed on the park
irrigation systems. It is important that this level of service be maintained because broken
sprinkler heads and irrigation timers can actually cause water waste and the deterioration
of turf and planter areas beyond an easily repairable level.
In line with the general discussion at the September 2 Council meeting, if the Council
elects to reduce landscape services as identified earlier in this report, using Glenwood
Park, Virginia Colony Park, and Country Trail Park, as demonstration sites, it could
anticipate savings of only about $5,292 annually in contract landscape maintenance
expenditures.
If the desire of the Council is to proceed in this direction, it may want to consider other
parks, such as Campus Park in place of Virginia Colony. Selecting Virginia Colony Park
for reduced landscape services or closure will net the least amount of savings.
Reduced Irrigation and Maintenance Service Levels
At the September 2 meeting, there was also discussion regarding a reduction in the level
of irrigation and non landscape maintenance performed in the parks. In regards to
reducing the level of turf watering, the Council indicated some interest in using Virginia
Colony Park as a test site to identify how much water could be cut back without allowing
the turf to die. While it's difficult to estimate how much savings can be generated by
reducing the turf watering schedule, staff estimates that the City could see around a 15 to
20 percent cost savings. This amounts to an annual savings of approximately $1,160 at
Virginia Colony, $1,600 at Country Trail, and $1,760 at Glenwood. It is important to
note that the City is at least half way through the dry season when there is a significant
increase in water usage. Therefore, any reduction in the watering schedule would most
likely result in less savings for the remainder of FY 1998/99. The City could proceed
with testing a reduction in the watering schedule at Virginia Colony and evaluate the
results prior to the development of the FY 1999/00 Budget.
Additionally, staff reviewed the potential cost savings that might be obtained by reducing
the level of maintenance performed by City park maintenance staff. It is difficult to
reduce maintenance expenditures since they are most often related to safety issues.
However, the Council may wish to provide staff with further direction by indicating
specifically what types of maintenance it wants to reduce. Such direction could include,
M:\N4Lindley\PARKS\parksavings.agd.doc 0 0 o
Potential Park Savings
Page 3 of 4
but is not limited to, graffiti abatement, repairs to drinking fountains, the repair and
replacement of basketball rims and nets, replacement of sand and wood chip material,
repairs to and annual repainting of wrought iron fences. For the remainder of FY
1998 /99, staff recommends that the City continue with the current level of maintenance to
park amenities up to a point when a particular item becomes a chronic problem. When a
park amenity requires more than an acceptable level of maintenance, staff would remove
or disable the item. This action would not result in any savings, but would help hold costs
to current levels. With more specific direction, it is possible that additional savings could
be identified.
Alternative Action
As an alternative to reducing the level of landscape and maintenance services in the
parks, the Council may wish to, once again, consider closing one or more parks. If three
parks were closed, in place of the aforementioned option of reducing landscape
maintenance at three parks, the City would continue to have nine fully maintained parks.
Each open park would be maintained at the current levels with the exception of removing
and /or disengaging amenities that present chronic maintenance problems. This action
would ensure that at a minimum, each open park would be reasonably attractive and free
from safety concerns.
Depending on the parks selected for closure, the City could generate greater savings than
those generated from reducing landscape service levels, as identified earlier in this report,
because park closures will more directly impact the landscape contractor's work load.
Not only will the City see a more significant saving in landscape service expenditures,
but there would also be savings in utilities and park maintenance. If the City were to
close Glenwood Park, Campus Park, and Country Trail Park, it could expect to see
savings of $38,376 annually in contract landscape maintenance expenditures compared
to the estimated $5,292 annual savings from reducing landscape service levels at the three
parks. The additional savings provided by the elimination of maintenance and utility
costs would increase the total annual savings from closing the three parks to
approximately $65,000. Attachment B identifies potential savings from closing parks in
the major expenditure categories.
As requested, Attachment C is being provided to identify potential costs associated with
closing each park, with the exception of Arroyo Vista Community Park. Park closure
costs include the rental of chain link fence, the purchase of park closure signs (two per
park), and some minor costs associated with any necessary equipment removal. If the
Council elects to close a park(s), it may wish to forego the installation of chain link fence.
Staff will draft a budget amendment resolution reflecting the Council's action on the
maintenance and/or status of the parks for consideration at the October 7 City Council
meeting.
M: 1NEindley lPARKSIparksavings.agd.doc `% 5
Potential Park Savings
Page 4 of 4
Recommendation
Its is recommended that the City Council:
Approve reduced landscape maintenance service levels for mowing,
edging, pruning, weed removal, and general clean up tasks to less than
once a week, and the implementation of a reduced irrigation schedule as
outlined in the Agenda Report, for Virginia Colony Park, Glenwood Park,
and Country Trail Park effective immediately; and
2. Direct staff to prepare a budget amendment resolution reflecting the
actions approved by the Council for consideration at the October 7 City
Council meeting to allocate funds for Virginia Colony Park.
M: VvEL indley \PARKSIparksavings.agd.doc
Attachment A
Proposed Park Maintenance Contract Savings
FY 98199 Monthly Revised Estimated
Budget Expense Monthly Expense Monthly Savings
Arroyo Vista Park
$5,019
$4,216
$803
Campus Park
$742
$624
$118
Campus Canyon Park
$2,345
$1,970
$375
Country Trail Park
$1,527
$1,283
$244
Glenwood Park
$929
$780
$149
Griffin Park
$1,105
$928
$177
Mountain Meadows Park
$2,277
$1,913
$364
Peach Hill Park
$2,309
$1,940
$369
Poindexter Park
$692
$581
$111
Tierra Rejada Park
$2,327
$1,955
$372
Virginia Colony
$300
$252
$48
TOTALS:
$19,572
$16,442
$3,130
i 00� ;1-6
Attachment 6
Annual Estimated Savings From Park Closures
Major Expenditure Categories
Repair/ Landscape Professional
Water Maint. Services Services Total
Arroyo Vista Park
$15,000
$5,000
$57,719
$5,000
$82,719
Campus Park
$8,000
$1,400
$8,254
$4,000
$21,654
Campus Canyon Park
$8,200
$1,000
$26,840
$1,000
$37,040
Country Trail Park
$8,000
$600
$17,024
$500
$26,124
Glenwood Park
$8,800
$800
$10,498
$3,500
$23,598
Griffin Park
$11,200
$800
$12,610
$5,000
$29,610
Mountain Meadows Park
$14,000
$1,000
$26,024
$1,000
$42,024
Peach Hill Park
$16,000
$1,800
$26,408
$800
$45,008
Poindexter Park
$15,000
$1,800
$6,884
$2,000
$25,684
Tierra Rejada Park
$6,800
$1,000
$26,624
$1,000
$35,424
Virginia Colony
$5,700
$500
$3,600
$500
$10,300
TOTAL:
116,700
15,700
222,485
24,300
$379,185
() Q F2?.6
Attachment C
Park Closing Costs
Fence Rental Min. Equip.
Monthly Annual Signs Removal Total
Campus Park
$200
$2,400
$260
$800
$3,460
Campus Canyon Park
$167
$2,000
$260
$800
$3,060
Country Trail Park
$333
$4,000
$260
$800
$5,060
Glenwood Park
$233
$2,800
$260
$800
$3,860
Griffin Park
$192
$2,300
$260
$800
$3,360
Mountain Meadows Park
$333
$4,000
$260
$800
$5,060
Peach Hill Park
$333
$4,000
$260
$800
$5,060
Poindexter Park
$200
$2,400
$260
$800
$3,460
Tierra Rejada Park
$417
$5,000
$260
$800
$6,060
Virginia Colony
$150
$1,800
$180
$500
$2,480
TOTALS:
$2,558
$30,700
$2,520
$7,700
$40,920
Go(LIZl.7